Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
i do not need any help or a case.And when you can actually NAME one - you might have a case . . .
I have eyes I can see
just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there
Good day sir.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
i do not need any help or a case.And when you can actually NAME one - you might have a case . . .
Sooooo, you claim that Catholic Tradition is in direct conflict with Scripture - yet you can't actually NAME one.i do not need any help or a case.
I have eyes I can see
just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there
Good day sir.
Ahhhh, so now you've contradicted yourself.
YOU stated the following:
"The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind."
NOW, you made the statement above in RED.
Sooooooo, WHICH it is??
already did, as have so many others.Sooooo, you claim that Catholic Tradition is in direct conflict with Scripture - yet you can't actually NAME one.
This is the textbook definition of a false accusation.
Congratulations - you are in violation of God's Commandment against bearing false witness . . .
You're arguing in circles . . .It is not "which is it" ... it is these men wrote the Bible under the inspiration of God. Can you guess whom these might be?
I guess I'll give you a hint, or we will be at this all day...
The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and the epistles, etc.
Now then, I would like to do something that may very well shock you. That is to admit there is one other way God speaks to us, which is through the gifts of the Spirit (although this is a gray area due to the devil's counterfeit gifts that we hear so many sad cases of).
See now, admitting something is not a difficult thing to do ... give it a try (it comes with something God LOVES, humility!)
God bless!
Uhhhh, no you didn't.already did, as have so many others.
again, if you cant see it, its not on us, We can not help you see what you do not wish to see.
and remember, its your church that accuses us of protesting your church. so if anything, it should be you proving us wrong.
and your arguments are faulty.. you can not prove a thing.
Nice try.
You're arguing in circles . . .
First, you stated:
"The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind."
THEN, you said:
"Whatever these traditions were, as to their matter, they were a revelation from God for they came by men who spake and acted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit"
So, WHICH is it?
Is Scripture God's SOLE communication with mankind - OR does He ALSO communicate through the spoken word and Sacred Tradition??
Make up your mind.
Yes, in post #2502 - YOU stated, "I agree" to the following dishonest comment by @Paul Christensen that, "The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind."I was replying to the first statement. I see you still have not caught on to the fact that you have my name stating something I never said. Soooo while your scratching your head on that one, go and closely examine post #2502 (as I had previously drawn your attention to).
Dude I am sick of your attitude. Don’t come to me acting like your part of any church when you can not even hold your tongueUhhhh, no you didn't.
if you DID - then simply point me to the post#.
As for your second idiotic comment in RED - why should the onus be on ME to prove YOU wrong - when YOU are the one making the moronic claim about the Catholic Church??
This is Debating 101 . . .
I usually rebuke people who openly LIE the way YOU have done.Dude I am sick of your attitude. Don’t come to me acting like your part of any church when you can not even hold your tongue
it’s not debating it’s you trying to defend your church at all costs
I could really care less about your church.
As for me showing a passage ? Which one?
Should I start at John 6? Maybe the passage where joseph knew Mary? Or the many others people have shown you?
get a life man. And learn how to talk to people
Then rebuke yourselfI usually rebuke people who openly LIE the way YOU have done.
YOU stated thatr the Church has Traditions that were in direct contradiction to Scripture - so I asked you to NAME one.
You failed - and now are attacking ME for having a "bad attitude".
Unbelievable . .
Yes, in post #2502 - YOU stated, "I agree" to the following dishonest comment by @Paul Christensen that, "The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind."
When you align yourself with a LIE - YOU are just as guilty of that lie.
Like I said - if you agree with that first comment in RED - which is a LIE - they YOU are guilty of the lie.I'm not surprised you put my name on Paul Christensen post, it falls in line with your dishonest dialog habits.
Now, let's take a close look at what I agree with...
Post #2502...
"The written Scriptures are God's sole communication with mankind." (I agreed, and also amended with gifts of the Spirit)
Let's continue...
"Anything written outside of the Bible is the uninspired authorship of man." (I agree. Albeit, that certainly gets your nose twisted out of joint because you use commentary and other writings as actual Bible scriptures)
"Any doctrine that is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible is a fraud and a deception. Paul said that even if an angel came and preached a different gospel than the one he preached, let him be cursed. If the Roman Catholic Church is preaching doctrines purporting to be the gospel of Christ and they are not consistent with the gospel that Paul preached then it is presenting a fraudulent gospel. (Again I agree)
Sooooo there you have it. Does that float your boat?
You didn't give me ANY specific examples.Then rebuke yourself
I just gave two examples
but it’s what I come to expect from people who are blindly trying to defend the Roman church
good luck man. I will pray for you
1. Your wrong about Mary. You have not obliterated anything. You gave us your view. It is not a supported view unless you use extra biblical sourcesYou didn't give me ANY specific examples.
John 6 is a LONG chapter with SEVENTY ONE verses. Which verse(s) are you talking about??
As for Joseph and Mary knowing each other - what verse are you talking about?? Matt. 1:25?
I have already obliterated this argument on this and 2 other threads.
Here it is again for your edification . . .
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? The Bible does NOT support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
What about Deut. 34:6 after Moses died? It says" He (God) buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but UNTIL this day no one knows where his grave is.
Did somebody find his grave AFTER this was written??
The problem here is that anti-Catholics attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.
WRONG.1. Your wrong about Mary. You have not obliterated anything. You gave us your view. It is not a supported view unless you use extra biblical sources
2. John 6 and your Eucharistic nonsense come on man it’s easy
as I said I am done. Until you come with a Christian attitude nothing you say means a thing
I'm not aware of any Scripture that says every doctrine must be tested by Scripture or that Scripture provides everything we need to know.According to the stupidity of extra biblical theology, any uneducated half wit can be taught the Bible teaches anything anyone wants them to believe, because no one can use the Bible to test. No one can understand that all scripture is given so the man of God may be thoroughly completely lacking nothing, and all we have to do is tell them God tells us what you should believe, and held us as his priests.listen to us. Not The bible
1. Your wrong about Mary. You have not obliterated anything. You gave us your view. It is not a supported view unless you use extra biblical sources
2. John 6 and your Eucharistic nonsense come on man it’s easy
as I said I am done. Until you come with a Christian attitude nothing you say means a thing
WRONG.
I didn't give "MY" view.
I gave you THREE examples from Scripture where the word "Until" (heos, 'ad) does NOT require a subsequent action.
The onus on YOU to refute this. If you can't then, you must concede.
This is NOT rocket science - it's Debating 101 . . .
I'm talking about true repentance, not fake repentance for the sake of appearances.Anyone can change their behaviour to please the onlookers. It is amazing how people change their behaviour when encountering a police officer! There are many church people who are "angels" at church and devils at home.
The Scriptures you quote state that no one is saved by works ALONE - none of them state that works are irrelevant to salvation. You've obviously misinterpreted them."Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin" (Romans 3:20).
"know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Romans 3:28).
So you obviously don't believe the clear statements of Scripture
the fraudulent doctrine of faith plus works of the Roman Catholic church that overrules the clear text of the Bible. If you are depending on your good works to be justified by God than what the Bible clearly teaches, then don't depend on having any assurance of Salvation because you might be trying to go over the wall of fraudulent religion instead of through the narrow gate of Christ.
You've demonstrated that you don't understand "the clear, reliable text of the Bible".I would rather depend on the clear, reliable text of the Bible than some false doctrine dreamed up by some adulterous fornicating pope during the Middle Ages.